N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R UB EN ALB ER TO ORE LLANA AQUINO, Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-71005 Age n c y No. A200-888-808
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 14, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A and B UM ATAY, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R AYES, * ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JUN 16 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Dougla s L. R ay e s, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.R

ube n Albe rto Ore lla

na Aquino, a

native an d c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of a

n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA)
a ffirm ing, without opinion, a de c ision of a

n Im m igration Judge(IJ). The IJ de nie d Aquino’ s a

pplic a tion for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c t ion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT) a nd orde re d him

re m ove d to El Sa lva dor. Aquino c ha lle n ge s the de nia l of withholding of re m ova l a nd C AT re lie f. 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition. 1. The IJ’ s finding tha t the ha rm Aquino suffe re d

doe s not riseto the le ve l of pe rse c ution is supporte d by substa n tia l e vide nc e . Se e Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C ir. 2019) (sta ting tha t “ [w] e re vie w the de nia l of
a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l a nd C AT c la im s for substa ntia l e vide nc e ” ); Alv a rado v . Holde r , 759 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ W he re , a s he re , ‘ the B IA sum m arily a ffirm s the IJ’ s de c ision, were vie wthe IJ’ s de c ision a s the fina l
a ge nc y a c tion.’ ” (quoting Pagay on v . Holde r , 675 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th C i r. 2011) (pe r c uriam ))). The IJ found tha t it wa s a “ c lose c a l l,” but “ [p] e rse c ution is ‘ an e xtre m e c onc e p t

tha t doe s not inc lude e ve ry

sort of tre a tm e nt our soc i e ty re ga rds a s offe nsive .’ ” Duran-Rodrigue z , 918 F.3d a

t 1028 (quoting N

agoulk o v . IN S , 333

1 Aquino doe s not c ha lle nge the IJ’ s finding tha t he is ine ligiblefor a sy lum be c a

use his a pplic at ion wa s untim e ly
.

2F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th C ir. 2003)). The e vide n c e doe s not c om pe l a c onc lusion
c ontra ry to the IJ’ s. S

e e id. (stating tha

t, unde r the substa

ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd,

“ we m ust uphold the a g e nc y

de te rm ination unle ss the e v ide nc e c om p e ls a c ontra

ry c onc lusion” ). Aquino a lso c ha lle nge s the IJ’ s re lia n c e on the la c k

of e vide n c e to
c orroborate his c la im

tha t he suffe re d pe rse c ution a nd would besubje c t to pe rse c ution on a c c ount of his politic a l opinion if re m ove d to El Sa lva dor. “ Eve n whe n a ssum ing c re dibility , the IJ or B IA m ay re quire a dditiona l, c orroborating
e vide nc e .” J

ieShi Liu v . Se

s sions , 891 F.3d 834, 838 (9th C ir. 2018). TheIJ spe c ifie d the ty

pe of c orroborating e vide nc e she re q uire d , suc h a s the polic e re port
and m ore de t a ile d le tte rs from his fa m ily to e sta blish the ir involve m e nt with the ARENA politic a l pa

rty and Aquino’ s re lationship with C la udia Ore lla

na . Howe ve r, Aquino provide d only his birth c e rtific a te and C la udia ’ s birth a

nd de a th
c e rtific a te s. “ The se doc um e nts did not me aningfully c orroborate the ke y

fa c tua l
c onte ntions a

t issue .” Id. at 839. Thee vide n c e Aquino provide d c onta ine d only ge ne ra l sta

te m e nts a nd did not e sta

blish tha t he “ ‘ he ld (or tha

t [his] pe rse c utors be lie ve d tha

t [he ] he ld) a

politic a l opinion,’ ” an d tha t his pe rse c utors “pe rse c ute d [him ] be c a

u se of [tha

t] politic a l opinion.” Rodrigue z Torne s v . Garland

, 993 F.3d 743, 752 (9th C ir. 2021) (quoting Ahme d v . K e i sle r , 504 F.3d 1183, 1192 (9th C ir.
32007)). The e v i de nc e doe s not c om pe l a c onc l usion c ontra

ry to the IJ’ s c o nc lusion that Aquino fa i le d to e sta

blish tha t he wa s pe rse c ute d on a c c ount of his politic a l opinion. 2. The IJ’ s de n ia l of C AT re l ie f a l so is supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e . C ontra

ry to Aquino’ s c onte ntion, theIJ did c onside r the c ountry
c onditions evide nc e and a c knowle dge d tha t it showe d “ e xc e ptiona l viole n c e ” in El Sa lva d or. None the le ss, she found it insuffic ie nt to e sta b lish tha t it is more like ly tha n not tha t Aquino in pa

rtic ula r would be torture d

if re turne d

to El Sa lva dor. Se e Flore s -Ve ga v . Barr , 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th C ir. 2019) (c onc luding tha t pe titione r

“ ha s not shown a

gre a te r risk to him

tha n any othe r M e xic an nationa l de porte d from the Unite d State s suc h tha t torture would be m ore like ly tha n not in his c a se ” (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d)); Gonzale

z-C arav e o v . Se

s sions , 882 F.3d 885, 894 (9th C i r. 2018) (re a soning tha t the IJ c o nside re d the c ountry c onditions, but

“ he wa s just not persua de d by it” ); De lgado-Ortiz v . Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ) (whe re pe titione rs’ “ ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e of viole nc e and c rim e in M e xic o [wa s] not pa rtic ula r” to the m , the y fa ile d to e sta blish
e ligibility for C AT re lie f). The pe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D.

4